Regarding Ike

[Florete]

No it's not, and it's narrow-minded to think that way. It has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on the blood pact. Just because you can't think of a proper replacement for it, doesn't mean it doesn't suck. Likewise, just because you think the blood pact fits well with the story, doesn't mean something else couldn't have. I would actually change a good amount of the story anyway (For example; The Serenes Massacre retcon felt pretty forced. I was only okay with it because the senators killed the laguz messengers).

The point is that you asked Anouleth (whom I assume doesn't complain about the Blood Pact by his responses) if he could think of something better when, if anyone, you should be the person to answer that question. And sure, you can have a problem with something without having a suggestion as to how to make it better, but you sure as hell won't be convincing anyone who doesn't think there's a problem. If you want to hold any water in this argument, come up with something.

And what is this retcon? I don't remember anything like that, but it's been a while since I've gone through these game's story lines.

That said, I believe bottlegnome's idea along with the Feral Ones being used is actually a good way to get Daein to side with Begnion, or at the very least, go against the Laguz Alliance. Don't underestimate the prejudice that Daein had for the Laguz. Hell, Crimea is still very prejudice to the laguz. What makes you think Daein would be any better?

When they joined the war, why do you think even Ike and co. were like "What the hell is Daein doing in the war? And alongside Begnion?" (quoted verbatim) They were in no position to join a war and had absolutely no reason to join with Begnion. There's no explaining away that one.

The Feral Ones idea is a good start, but still flimsy at best. For one, we don't really know what Izuka is up to; why do we not see him or the Feral Ones except for one map after part 1? If Begnion has them so easily at their disposal, why were they not used against the Laguz Alliance and Crimea? For two, yes, they know about the Feral Ones and they'd know that it was Begnion attacking them. The people may be biased, but they also trust Micaiah and Pelleas. Besides, who's to say the people themselves don't know that it was Feral Ones Ashnard used in his war (he was their king, after all) and that those would not be part of the Laguz Alliance?

[bottlegnomes]

And uprisings would not start when Daein would side with Begnion out of pelleas' own free will? Micaiah can sense thoughts etc somewhat, and would know that Pelleas would join begnion just to be able to gain popularity by letting his nation hunt laguz. If micaiah would sense this, do you think she'd still fight? She only fights in the game because she feels Pelleas is being forced to war against the laguz against his will.

The daein citizens wouldn't even want to side with begnion if the Priestess of Dawn wouldn't support the kings choice. They have been treated like slaves by the Begnion occupational army. Daein only fights together with their former oppressors because of the maiden. No maiden = no army. Jill's base convo in 3-6 is a perfect example. She doesn't believe in the king, it's Micaiah herself who actually still gets the army moving. And as I said before. If Pelleas would war against the laguz just for the sake of hunting them, she wouldn't fight for him. And no maiden = no army.

Hence Lekain threatening Pelleas to start rebellions, in place of mocking him over the blood pact.

How is Pelleas being forced to fight so his nation doesn't tear itself apart any different than Pelleas being forced to fight because some magical pact will kill everyone in his nation? Either way, Miccy would probably help Pelleas to preserve Daein.

I'll add onto this by saying this can be further emphasized with the fact that Begnion still has a large amount of Feral Ones at their disposal (since Izuka is supplied by them), and they can use them to attack Daein during the war with the Laguz Alliance. Of course, Micaiah and Pelleas knows about the Feral Ones, and Sothe knows it like the back of his hand, but the people don't, and I really doubt the Daein citizens, biased as they already are, would listen to reason outside of that.

Not only does everything roughly stays the same, but both Zihark and Jill both legitimately have their internal stuggles with fighting for Daein (instead of losing all personality until they're talked to), and the Dawn Brigade suddenly has a lot more to talk about. Also, Pelleas doesn't look like a dork for most of Part III, and the senators actually look smart.

I like that idea.

Join and fight with the country that had them oppressed for three years and which the entirety of part 1 is spent fighting against for their liberation? I don't think so. Somehow I really don't think the people would revolt over him not choosing a side in the war, and I'm sure some of them know (word spreads) that some Laguz actually helped them in their liberation.

They also "helped" free Daein by sending an envoy led by Sephiran to investigate Jarod's abuse of his power, of which the senate was "not aware." They could save face pretty easily and convince the people that they have the best interests of Daein at heart and the Laguz are evil, especially with as racist as Daein is.

People always say the Blood Pact is a stupid plot hole or something, but no one is ever able to do anything better. I never understood why it was such a big deal; it's fantasy for a reason.

Clipsey (though after you posted), HeroMystic, and I just gave a few possibilities that don't even require changing the story much.

Theorycraft time~!

Begnion attempts to assassinate Micaiah. If it fails, they go up to Pelleas and offer "proof" that it was done by the Laguz Alliance, because once the LA gets a foothold in Begnion, they intend on taking over Daein next, and the faster they can throw Daein into confusion, the better. Either Micaiah dies, or Begnion gets Daein to attack the Laguz Alliance of their own free will.

That legitimately sounds really cool.

When they joined the war, why do you think even Ike and co. were like "What the hell is Daein doing in the war? And alongside Begnion?" (quoted verbatim) They were in no position to join a war and had absolutely no reason to join with Begnion. There's no explaining away that one.

Being in no position to join a war is no reason to stay out. As covered previously, Begnion could pretty easily make it seem like Jarod was just a rogue and the senate has the best interests of Daein at heart and just want to stop the Laguz menace.

The Feral Ones idea is a good start, but still flimsy at best. For one, we don't really know what Izuka is up to; why do we not see him or the Feral Ones except for one map after part 1? If Begnion has them so easily at their disposal, why were they not used against the Laguz Alliance and Crimea? For two, yes, they know about the Feral Ones and they'd know that it was Begnion attacking them. The people may be biased, but they also trust Micaiah and Pelleas. Besides, who's to say the people themselves don't know that it was Feral Ones Ashnard used in his war (he was their king, after all) and that those would not be part of the Laguz Alliance?

Why is it flimsy? We're already talking about changing the story. Izuka is clearly working with Begnion and still messing around with the feral drug. It's not exactly a stretch to say that Begnion could capture some laguz and give them the drug to use against Daein to trick them into fighting. It's not specified in the story as is, but it's plenty plausible given what the characters are like.

Both ideas also bring up the struggle of balancing what the people want and what would be best for the people.

[Anouleth]

Theorycraft time~!

Begnion attempts to assassinate Micaiah. If it fails, they go up to Pelleas and offer "proof" that it was done by the Laguz Alliance, because once the LA gets a foothold in Begnion, they intend on taking over Daein next, and the faster they can throw Daein into confusion, the better. Either Micaiah dies, or Begnion gets Daein to attack the Laguz Alliance of their own free will.

Actually, I was thinking of a laguz or even a Crimean assassination attempt against Pelleas. Pelleas is already established as disliking laguz, but he might really get paranoid if there was an assassination attempt on his life. Micaiah might go along with it because Pelleas is needed to unify Daein, and everyone in Daein goes along with her. Perhaps you could also put something in about Pelleas getting cursed by the "assassins" (instead of the whole country getting cursed), but it turns out to have been Izuka.

Alternatively, Begnion could find out that Micaiah is Branded. With that information in their grasp, they could potentially blackmail Micaiah and the Liberation Army into aiding them.

Problem with these is, there's no reason for Micaiah to continue the war after a certain point. Micaiah might go along with a crazy king for a while (like Haar and Tauroneo did with Ashnard) but she'd eventually get to the point where keeping Daein unified isn't worth it being annihilated in war (like Haar and Tauroneo eventually decided to abandon Ashnard). Begnion really does need a way to directly control Daein in a way that they can't refuse to fulfil the demands of the plot.

[FionordeQuester]

I haven't been putting a whole heck of a lot of thought into this, so maybe I COULD come up with a good reason for Daein fighting with Begnion, but right now, my thought is, why do we even need Daein in the war at all? Why not just have it be Begnion vs. Laguz Alliance, and maybe have a side chapter where Micaiah and Pelleas are trying to convince people to defeat Begnion?

I mean heck, that actually sounds really cool now that I think about it. I've taken psychology classes, and one of the main things I've learned is that one of the absolute BEST ways to get groups to get over their biased views of each other is to get them to work together to overcome a common threat. They've done studies on this, and it actually DOES work really well.

Daein might not give military aid since, as previous posters have said, they've been busy trying to reconstruct themselves, but they could at least agree to not, say, put trading tariffs on Ike and Co., or something like that, right?

Edited August 9, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[bottlegnomes]

The only thing I'm not sure about the blackmail on is if Micaiah would really be wiling to lead the people to their deaths just to keep her dirty little secret, which she doesn't care about, from getting out. I feel like she'd rather let the people hate her and leave Begnion. Then again, that could lead to one of two things. First, Pelleas begs her to go along with it, keeping her innocent, or change her so she's more flawed and actually cares what people think of her and doesn't want to be ostracized.

Well, Daein isn't ever really in danger of being completely annihilated by war until 3-13. Even in 3-12 they're still doing pretty well. So 3-13 and 3-E could be fiddled with cosmetically to fit the changed story, like feral laguz and Daein soldiers replacing the GMs and LA in 3-13 and Begnion replacing Daein in 3-F. Even then, 3-13 is pretty much the tipping point of the war, so that could happen as is and instead of retreating, Micaiah could stay back and meet with Ike and end up joining the LA. At that point, the soldiers would probably be willing to go with it despite their hatred of Laguz just because of how badly they've been doing and Miccy could convince them that Begnion was really behind everything; Jarod wasn't just a rogue. Keeping Daein involved in 3-F but still fitting with the new story would be a little tricky, but it could be done, and probably better than the blood pact.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[eclipse]

I haven't been putting a whole heck of a lot of thought into this, so maybe I COULD come up with a good reason for Daein fighting with Begnion, but right now, my thought is, why do we even need Daein in the war at all? Why not just have it be Begnion vs. Laguz Alliance, and maybe have a side chapter where Micaiah and Pelleas are trying to convince people to defeat Begnion?

I mean heck, that actually sounds really cool now that I think about it. I've taken psychology classes, and one of the main things I've learned is that one of the absolute BEST ways to get groups to get over their biased views of each other is to get them to work together to overcome a common threat. They've done studies on this, and it actually DOES work really well.

Daein might not give military aid since, as previous posters have said, they've been busy trying to reconstruct themselves, but they could at least agree to not, say, put trading tariffs on Ike and Co., or something like that, right?

IIRC, the entire continent needs to be at war to awaken Yune/Ashera.

[Florete]

We're already talking about changing the story.

And now I remember my problem with this argument: Why do we need to change the story? What is really wrong with it as it is other than some of you "I just don't like it?" I don't see any plot holes or inconsistencies, at least.

[Rapier]

Can you think of a better reason for them to join the war on Begnion's side?

They didn't need to.

What I think is Daein could have stood agaisnt Begnion's increasing popularity and territory (as it's an Empire) without having to join the L.A at first. I imagine a twist in which Ike would be pressed to run to Daein instead of going into the Cave With Lava Floors Chapter, and then Begnion pursues the group into the territory.

And now I remember my problem with this argument: Why do we need to change the story? What is really wrong with it as it is other than some of you "I just don't like it?" I don't see any plot holes or inconsistencies, at least.

It does not need plot holes and inconsistencies to be flawed. The whole reason for Daein to fight the L.A was convenient and poor. The whole war agaisnt Begnion was written poorly actually, as much as I love FE10.

[eclipse]

And now I remember my problem with this argument: Why do we need to change the story? What is really wrong with it as it is other than some of you "I just don't like it?" I don't see any plot holes or inconsistencies, at least.

I've got a one-shot story floating around in Written Works somewhere, that has no plot holes or inconsistency. I maintain that it is one of the worst thing I've ever wrote, and as a story, it's horrible. A story can have more problems that what you mentioned, like me having to suspend my disbelief between atoms to swallow the nonsense that was a blood pact.

[Baldrick]

And now I remember my problem with this argument: Why do we need to change the story? What is really wrong with it as it is other than some of you "I just don't like it?" I don't see any plot holes or inconsistencies, at least.

Personally, I feel the Blood Pact was a cop-out. There were plenty of interesting directions the writer could've taken with Part 3 Daein, and they chose "a magical paper is forcing us to fight" ? Lame.

[Florete]

It does not need plot holes and inconsistencies to be flawed. The whole reason for Daein to fight the L.A was convenient and poor. The whole war agaisnt Begnion was written poorly actually, as much as I love FE10.

I've got a one-shot story floating around in Written Works somewhere, that has no plot holes or inconsistency. I maintain that it is one of the worst thing I've ever wrote, and as a story, it's horrible. A story can have more problems that what you mentioned, like me having to suspend my disbelief between atoms to swallow the nonsense that was a blood pact.

I included the "at least" part for a reason. You are both right; there can still be problems without plot holes. But see, neither of you really answered my question; what is wrong with it? It is convenient, okay. But what makes that such poor storytelling? I'd also like to point out the fact that it's not just Daein under a Blood Pact, and if that were the only use of it, I'd probably be annoyed as well. However, we see that Ashnard originally came to power through a Blood Pact (which is something that, when you think about it, was never explained in PoR) and the reason Kilvas always betrays everyone is because of the same thing. It's not like it's a convenient plot device set up just to get Daein into the war, the senators have been at this shit for a while.

Also consider game-play; Radiant Dawn is a video game, first and foremost. They needed a way to get Daein fighting somehow, and all the other ideas you've all come up with are shaky or just wouldn't reasonably last long. All things considered, forcing their hand into the war via something like a Blood Pact is really the only way to do it since they'd never have a reason otherwise.

In all honesty, if they'd gone with one of the ideas that has been proposed in this thread, I bet we'd all be complaining about the problems those bring.

4 years ago people were telling me this Blood Pact thing sucked, and despite changing my views on a lot of things I had back then, I still don't understand this one.

Personally, I feel the Blood Pact was a cop-out. There were plenty of interesting directions the writer could've taken with Part 3 Daein, and they chose "a magical paper is forcing us to fight" ? Lame.

Well, at least you're the first to give a reason beyond "it sucks." So thank you for that. I can see how it might be viewed as a cop-out, though given its extensive use since PoR and the nature of the characters involved, I think it works well enough.

On that note, I'd like to ask everyone who still hates the Blood Pact; how would you explain away the other uses of it if were never to exist? How did Ashnard take power so fast and why did Kilvas keep betraying everyone? The latter in particular had me wondering for a lot of RD.

[Momo]

On that note, I'd like to ask everyone who still hates the Blood Pact; how would you explain away the other uses of it if were never to exist? How did Ashnard take power so fast and why did Kilvas keep betraying everyone? The latter in particular had me wondering for a lot of RD.

Pure force and bad writing, respectively. I wouldn't have Kilvas betray the party at all because they already used that plot twist.

[eclipse]

On that note, I'd like to ask everyone who still hates the Blood Pact; how would you explain away the other uses of it if were never to exist? How did Ashnard take power so fast and why did Kilvas keep betraying everyone? The latter in particular had me wondering for a lot of RD.

1. Sheer intimidation and ruthless treachery.

2. Begnion pays better, which is what I gathered.

[bottlegnomes]

And now I remember my problem with this argument: Why do we need to change the story? What is really wrong with it as it is other than some of you "I just don't like it?" I don't see any plot holes or inconsistencies, at least.

Pelleas can't be that fucking stupid to not at leasr skim the deal he made and noticed the whole we can destroy your nation section. Then there's the issue that the blood pact would take a drastically long time to have an effect that would be greater than the deaths due to war. After 100 days 5050 people total would have died. How many do you think would have died after 100 days of war?

I included the "at least" part for a reason. You are both right; there can still be problems without plot holes. But see, neither of you really answered my question; what is wrong with it? It is convenient, okay. But what makes that such poor storytelling? I'd also like to point out the fact that it's not just Daein under a Blood Pact, and if that were the only use of it, I'd probably be annoyed as well. However, we see that Ashnard originally came to power through a Blood Pact (which is something that, when you think about it, was never explained in PoR) and the reason Kilvas always betrays everyone is because of the same thing. It's not like it's a convenient plot device set up just to get Daein into the war, the senators have been at this shit for a while.

Covered the issues above. As for storytelling, it's eh. Not terrible, but not particularly good. It's basically a way of forcing Daein to help and one that came out of nowhere, a deus ex machina but kind of in reverse. If they'd even alluded to it earlier, like had the scene shown at the end of part 1 it would have been more acceptable. I will say Ashnard's use of it was quite clever.

Also consider game-play; Radiant Dawn is a video game, first and foremost. They needed a way to get Daein fighting somehow, and all the other ideas you've all come up with are shaky or just wouldn't reasonably last long. All things considered, forcing their hand into the war via something like a Blood Pact is really the only way to do it since they'd never have a reason otherwise.

They really aren't any shakier than the blood pact and I even covered ways that the gameplay and story could remain largely the same, but still make sense with the changed stories.

In all honesty, if they'd gone with one of the ideas that has been proposed in this thread, I bet we'd all be complaining about the problems those bring.

Possibly, even probably. People like to complain. But alas, we'll never know.

4 years ago people were telling me this Blood Pact thing sucked, and despite changing my views on a lot of things I had back then, I still don't understand this one.

Well, at least you're the first to give a reason beyond "it sucks." So thank you for that. I can see how it might be viewed as a cop-out, though given its extensive use since PoR and the nature of the characters involved, I think it works well enough.

It does work, and it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. It's just kinda eh.

On that note, I'd like to ask everyone who still hates the Blood Pact; how would you explain away the other uses of it if were never to exist? How did Ashnard take power so fast and why did Kilvas keep betraying everyone? The latter in particular had me wondering for a lot of RD.

For Ashnard, poison, assassinations (Volke maybe?), Ashnard manipulating battles to get them killed (IIRC they were in some sort of conflict and Ashy was a fairly respected military figure). I'm sure there are others, but like I said, that was actually a pretty cool way of using the blood pact. Kilvas is easy. Keep Naesala the same as he was in PoR, a man so dedicated to helping his nation grow he was willing to screw over others and come off as an asshole if he thought it could help, kind of like Trabant.

Edited August 10, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Baldrick]

On that note, I'd like to ask everyone who still hates the Blood Pact; how would you explain away the other uses of it if were never to exist? How did Ashnard take power so fast and why did Kilvas keep betraying everyone? The latter in particular had me wondering for a lot of RD.

For the former, Ashnard is a social Darwinist; he would have no qualms about killing everyone between him and the throne the same way he killed his father. It may have been more difficult for him to hide the evidence, but since apparently nobody was suspicious that everyone above him died of the same "mysterious illness", I feel it's not unreasonable to assume he could have pulled it off the old-fashioned way.

(Ashnard's pact also produces a minor plot inconsistency. It's main purpose was to allow Almedha to provide exposition on the Blood Pact. Why didn't she mention that she knew how to break it when they were trying to figure it out, before Pelleas did his research?).

Naesala, as he stands, could not have had his behaviour explained away without a Blood Pact. To make up for the Blood Pact not existing, either;

Make the Central Army arrive earlier, so that the bird tribes don't have the opportunity to harry them.

Make Naesala less noble and more ambitious, like he seemed to be in PoR. (I'm going off the game script, since I've never played it)

[Sunwoo]

There's something I've been wondering about Ashnard. Didn't Tanith say in FE9 that he was a prince "so distant it was unlikely he would succeed the throne", then in the end of FE9 it is implied that his father was the king and also in FE10 as well?

[bottlegnomes]

The part about FE9 is true. In Bryce and Ashnard's convo at the end it makes it seem like Ashy's dad was king, as they talk about Bryce serving him. One possibility I can think of is he killed them all of until his dad was in charge and figured he could wait for his dad to die, as he appears fairly old in RD. But he got fed up with waiting and decided to off him. Not sure about the FE10 part.

[Sunwoo]

That's one idea I had. Perhaps in FE10, his father wasn't the king when Ashnard tricked him into signing the contract, but WAS the king at the end of it all. Who knows? :/ I wish they had been more clear on that.

[Lord Raven]

There's something I've been wondering about Ashnard. Didn't Tanith say in FE9 that he was a prince "so distant it was unlikely he would succeed the throne", then in the end of FE9 it is implied that his father was the king and also in FE10 as well?

When was this ever implied?

[Sunwoo]

From the FE9 script posted on the main site:

AshnardTell me, Bryce... You were my father's retainer, were you not?

Bryce

...From the fifteenth year of my life...and for twenty more years until his death... I did serve him faithfully.

Ashnard

The thing that killed my father was not plague, nor was it another illness. It was me.

Bryce

Wh-what?

Ashnard

Oh, but it doesn't end there. There was my stepmother, too. And every brother who stood to be a legitimate heir...All of them died by my hand.

Bryce

...

Ashnard

Are you still determined to protect me? Knowing this truth?

Bryce

...I am...Even knowing now as I do...you are still your father's son. The blood of Daein's kings flows in you. You are all that remains....By your leave.

Maybe I was interpreting it wrong, but those lines made it sound like Ashnard's father was pretty high up.

[Lord Raven]

It's possible that while his father was the King, there were still many in line before him because of his father's siblings and some of his own siblings. He also mentioned stepmother so his father could've gotten around. Think back to Renning and Elincia's parents; I think Renning was set to be king after King Ramon died, for instance.

[Sunwoo]

It's possible that while his father was the King, there were still many in line before him because of his father's siblings and some of his own siblings. He also mentioned stepmother so his father could've gotten around. Think back to Renning and Elincia's parents; I think Renning was set to be king after King Ramon died, for instance.

That's a fair point about Ashard. But wasn't Renning declared to be Ramon's heir at a time before Elincia was born? It seems to imply that if Elincia had existed sooner, she may have been the official heir instead.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, I think I said that somewhere in my post. Similar enough concept, probably exactly what happened to Ashnard.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Lord Raven

[Anouleth]

I haven't been putting a whole heck of a lot of thought into this, so maybe I COULD come up with a good reason for Daein fighting with Begnion, but right now, my thought is, why do we even need Daein in the war at all? Why not just have it be Begnion vs. Laguz Alliance, and maybe have a side chapter where Micaiah and Pelleas are trying to convince people to defeat Begnion?

I mean heck, that actually sounds really cool now that I think about it. I've taken psychology classes, and one of the main things I've learned is that one of the absolute BEST ways to get groups to get over their biased views of each other is to get them to work together to overcome a common threat. They've done studies on this, and it actually DOES work really well.

So basically it would be exactly like a conventional FE? You'd be throwing out every difficult moral choice and decision that Micaiah has to make, in the favour of "all the good guys just team up to defeat the obviously evil bad guys"? Essentially, you'd be removing literally everything that makes FE10's plot unique and interesting.

Daein might not give military aid since, as previous posters have said, they've been busy trying to reconstruct themselves, but they could at least agree to not, say, put trading tariffs on Ike and Co., or something like that, right?

Yeah that's just what FE needs, a political debate about war sanctions and protectionism.

The only thing I'm not sure about the blackmail on is if Micaiah would really be wiling to lead the people to their deaths just to keep her dirty little secret, which she doesn't care about, from getting out. I feel like she'd rather let the people hate her and leave Begnion. Then again, that could lead to one of two things. First, Pelleas begs her to go along with it, keeping her innocent, or change her so she's more flawed and actually cares what people think of her and doesn't want to be ostracized.

The point would be more that if it were found out that she were Branded, it could even cause another civil war. Pelleas doesn't like branded, so what if he were to try to get rid of her? It could easily spiral into a conflict between those who support Micaiah no matter what, and those who think she should be executed as a Branded (or something).

Micaiah doesn't want to be ostracised or hated: but she's already said that she doesn't care if people think she's a monster, as long as she does what's right by Daein. I don't think the solution is to destroy her existing characterisation. I mean, enough people hate her for her "bad decisions" already.

IIRC, the entire continent needs to be at war to awaken Yune/Ashera.

Yes. Yune only reawakens when every country joins in the war (the last are Goldoa and Hatary). The reason why Ashnard failed to reawaken the dark god through war is because he was unaware of the existence of an eighth nation.

That's my headcanon, anyway.

For the former, Ashnard is a social Darwinist; he would have no qualms about killing everyone between him and the throne the same way he killed his father. It may have been more difficult for him to hide the evidence, but since apparently nobody was suspicious that everyone above him died of the same "mysterious illness", I feel it's not unreasonable to assume he could have pulled it off the old-fashioned way.

(Ashnard's pact also produces a minor plot inconsistency. It's main purpose was to allow Almedha to provide exposition on the Blood Pact. Why didn't she mention that she knew how to break it when they were trying to figure it out, before Pelleas did his research?).

Wow read the script why don't you

"Micaiah

How could you, Almedha? How could you not tell us? You knew all along--

Almedha

Because I was terrified! I knew that once you found out the truth, you would butcher my dear son to save your doomed country! I would have done anything to save my Pelleas... That's why I didn't say anything... How could I? In the end, though...it wasn't enough."

Edited August 10, 2012 by Anouleth

[bottlegnomes]

The point would be more that if it were found out that she were Branded, it could even cause another civil war. Pelleas doesn't like branded, so what if he were to try to get rid of her? It could easily spiral into a conflict between those who support Micaiah no matter what, and those who think she should be executed as a Branded (or something).

Where's that brought up? I don't recall Pelleas being particularly one way or the other. Then again, I haven't payed attention to the specifics of the script in forever. As for the conflict, that would work as well, though I still doubt Micaiah would support it if it started.

Micaiah doesn't want to be ostracised or hated: but she's already said that she doesn't care if people think she's a monster, as long as she does what's right by Daein. I don't think the solution is to destroy her existing characterisation. I mean, enough people hate her for her "bad decisions" already.

The problem is that Micaiah puts the well being of Daein ahead of everything. So she'd probably just leave Daein and avoid the issue rather than willingly lead them to a war she doesn't believe in or potentially cause a civil war. That said, someone, like Sothe, could bring up the idea of the people siding with her and revolting anyway, despite her wishes.